Shipbucket

Cheers!

I would imagine so, there's an article in a 1990 Flight about 'them' wanting to retrofit it for various reasons as part of a weapons system upgrade (I imagine the road to GR.4).

As for canopy shading, it's one of my pet niggles.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Love the tornado and typhoon may have to use them for the Commonwealth of New Cromer. ....

So... This is now a thing.

Due to circumstances and events beyond our control the tank situation has developed not necessarily to our advantage. Ergo behold what is likely to cause somewhat of a stir in NW Europe. Hoards of T-34s coming at you from both the East and West...



In essence these are T-34s just comprehensively modified to suit requirements. The original T-34s that entered service in 1942 would have been as contemporary Russian vehicles with minimum changes such as the radios and MGs etcetera.

The 1943 model so to speak is where things change.
> MG34s would be used in place of DTs (Yes TG got them in the thirties)
> The Christie suspension gets return rollers and slightly smaller drivers to try and alleviate the track shedding and shredding problems.
> The V-2 would by now have received a better air filter and epicyclic transmission similar to that used in the Cromwell. Essentially the engine would be comparable to a V-2IS or thereabouts.
> The turret traverse system would now be a hydraulic system similar to contemporary British cruiser tanks
> The commander now has a cupola with all-round vision
> The turret ventilation system has been modified to try and stop the loader from falling unconscious
> There is a new domestically developed welded three-man turret similar to that on the T-34M prototype (though not developed from it).
> British radio and intercom equipment would be fitted in the form of a 19 set for inter-tank communications and a throat microphone system for internal communications
> Crew seating would be improved with better folding seats with elbow rests
> The driver's hatch would receive a better prismatic view-port as well as two armoured glass view ports in the hull to aid manoeuvring.
> Hull armour would be broadly the same as later T-34s with an arrangement of 45mm, 45mm and 45mm for the front, side and rear plates with floor and roof armour being 20mm.
> Turret armour would be 90mm, 60mm and 60mm (reduced to 65mm all-round on the Firefly)
> Main armament would be in flux throughout development. Original 1942 era vehicles would have F-34s as Russian vehicles seeing as the round used is a common round.
> 1943 vehicles would first get an indigenous L/43 to replace the F-34 before receiving an L/50 version of the gun (much like the KwK-40).
> With the appearance of the Tiger the T-34/57 would start to appear in limited numbers at first usually issued to platoon commanders and then dedicated tank destroyer platoons in formations.
> The original 57mm used would be the L/43 and L/52 6pdr hastily modified to fit the turret which would be in use at the time. Later developments would see the fielding of an L/70, capable of penetrating the frontal armour of a Tiger A at 500yds with APCR ammunition.
> The terminal effects of the 57mm required an experienced crew to be effective against newer German tanks. However, the ability to penetrate most-all vehicles meant that the L70 vehicles would remain in production until the cessation of hostilities being used in both tank and tank-destroyer units.
> The problems with the 57mm and shorter 76mm guns brings about the T-34 Firefly with a 17pdr. The turret would require modifications receiving a new mantlet and being fractionally longer and wider than earlier turrets.
> Although superior to their stable mates the Fireflies were slow to enter production, which only started to ramp up after D-Day
> Appliqué field kits would be issued for D-Day both as field-kits and factory-fitted.
> The kits consisted of stowage bins, 15mm skirts and appliqué panels for the hull front and sides as well as the turret.
> The hull panels would be applied to the hull with a 10mm air-spacer whereas the turret panels would be fitted with a 30mm air-spacer. These kits had the effect of increasing survivability against hollow-charge and capped rounds.
> Some vehicles not fitted with field kits after D-Day received mesh skirting and panels to nullify the effects of panzerfausts and panzershrecks as much as possible.

~Mark.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Nice looking Tanks Blackbuck

_________________
___________________________________________

Best Regards,
Aart.

Projects:

The Kingdom of Rochfort in FD

Interesting ideas!

They look very nice but do they make sense to a island out in the Atlantic ? would they not be very much more likely to use an M4 bases tank ? (or GB based ?)

JSB

Nope. This is why we've ended up with the T-34s. Lord Nuffield is an ass and wont let you touch anything he has his hand in (I.E the whole cruiser line at that point) and the US aren't likely to allow the preferred option of M4/10s to be built under licence. Ergo, T-34s (and KVs I might add).
Add to which the serious consideration by Britain to build both T-34s and KV-1s during the war it makes total sense to have them in service.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Why would they not allow licence building ? Grizzly and Ram would suggest they might well let you ? And the British are not going to say no to anybody selling them stuff post 39 ?

I just think that Tol Galen might be much better at building US/GB stuff as its closer and easier to reach and they might share building standards ? (metric/imp/US ?)

JSB

Because the design in question would differ greatly from American production vehicles. Grizzly and Ram do not differ much from American production vehicles. Making a whole new vehicle based off of M4 / M10 tooling isn't just tweaking an M3 or M4 chassis.

As I said. Nuffield was an ass. It's nothing to do with not wanting to sell us stuff. It's to do with the fact that the equipment in question is crap. The T-34 replaces earlier British cruisers in service such as the A9, A10 and A13 but the Covenanter and Crusader are utter garbage and can't easily be upgraded, politically or mechanically. The Cromwell comes too late to be of any use and the Sherman is by no means a cruiser tank.

As I also mentioned the British took the idea of producing their own T-34s and KV-1s very seriously so it's not as outlandish as you seem to think.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

A very cool idea and one that looks great too.

The Brits did assess the T-34. It would be interesting to see what an Anglicised T-34 would look like and these fit the bill very nicely.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft